Hello,

here you can post and discuss messages about "Analysis of Abalone-games".

Best Regards,
Funky-AbaloneTheory-JAzzclub

Analysis: methodology, methods, comments


Methodology:

A fruitful methodology-principle is to distinguish several  analysis-point-of-views and to develop methods for each point of view. The climax is the synthesis (method-triangulation): to unite this several methods into a comment.

Analysis-methods:

Static:
This is a very common method. You go ahead from one move to the next move and you write comments to pretty every move. Maybe you analyse the situation tactically with variations or you analyse the positional patterns or the strategy, but always static: of the perspective of each "present-move".

Static-comparative:
Here you have to compare one situation with an other situation. Most of the time this is a "sequence".  You ask: What has changed, positional and strategical ? Are there now any tactical, positional, strategical possibilities?  Are they gone?

Dynamic:
Of this point of view you try to “understand” the game like a story. All the sequences of the static-comparative-analysis  are now parts of a game-flow.
An example: In the opening the player A had a little advantage, because ... and player B missed a important opening-move, because ... . Then, in the first transitional phase, player A missed to recognise an advantageous middle-game-pattern and he made tactical faults, too. Therefore player B got the initiative, developed his dominance and conquered some key-points... . And so on.


Analysis-Comments:

There are sometimes comments like: “Dangerous!”, “Not bad”, “Good, but not so much”, “White is better”, “Black is now better”, “Black ejects of course”, “Big mistake” and so on.
This are comments, but comments without reasons.
Even the comments “takes a key point” is a comment without a explanation, because there is very often a necessity to explain the key-point-structure.  

Why isn’t there any reason or explanation? Either the situation is obvious to recognise or the commentator has not a theory to give reasons for his comments, rather the comment is unexpressed supported of the experience.  

The great importance of a theory is to support the comments with reasons and explanations. There should be an argumentation in the manner:  “White is better, because …” followed by theoretical terms, explained with practical terms.(*)


Summery:

It seems a fruitful way to integrate static, static-comparative and dynamic aspects into comments. The Comments should argue in front of  a founded theory-background, with theoretical and practical terms(*).  This all is - of my point of view - necessary for deep understanding of the game and for a mutual understanding and argumentation in theoretical dialogues.


*(The meta-theoretical terms "theoretical term" and "practical term": Compare http://148009.aceboard.net/148009-1838-1826-0-Abalone-Theory.htm)  

--Last edited by Abalone-Theory-Forum on 2006-02-04 20:58:36 --